#31
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
You're talking about a different kind of law. The Copyright Act hasn't changed since 1976, with some minor additions to the statute itself. The changes you're talking about are common law changes in the interpretation of the Copyright Act, and those interpretations aren't only prospective.
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
F them .. I wrote their sorry a$$'s an email.
Now I wasn't mean but I wanted to .. We can at least crash their site http://www.tuffcity.com/contact-us/ |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Quote:
I wrote an email to the sinister asses at viacom ... your post just reminded me of that.
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
To throw this at them right after MCA's death is in poor taste.
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Money hungry, lawsuit happy, hood rats... FUCK THEM!
Isnt there a statute of limitations on this shit?
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
http://ca.eonline.com/news/bad_timin...ie_boys/314748
Quote:
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Quote:
There is no "grandfathering" in. That's just completely incorrect as a matter of law. That's not to say that they don't have a strong case. As I've said in other threads, I think they do. But it would be better to talk about the real reasons why than to imagine some fictional "grandfathering" exception to US copyright law. There is no such thing and I don't care where you heard it.
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
That's why I was confused.
How can changes to the law, even common law, that took place after the albums were produced be used against them? |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
"Was Paul’s Boutique Illegal?" -> http://www.slate.com/articles/busine..._boys_did.html
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Quote:
When there is a grey area, you're at risk doing anything that could even be interpreted as violative of the law later down the road. So, if a you're doing something that's in a grey area and then a Court later decides that what you're doing is a actually violation (i.e. what was once grey is now black), then you're on the hook. It's fundamentally different than having a clear law that is later changed. That's not what copyright law has done. It was a law with lots of grey area that's being slowly fleshed out in the interpretation. But for those that don't know, the statute of limitations is likely to be 3 years from when Tuff City discoverd the infringement, or reasonably SHOULD have discovered it. Tuff City was a fairly well known player in the hip hop game in the 80s. I have a hard time believing they just discovered the sample use in the last 3 years, and in any event, they SHOULD have discovered it by now. It still bothers me that the Beasties have been such a target for these suits. I'm sure it has affected their choices as artists. We really don't want that sort of "chilling" affect in this area of the law because the entire core reason for the act is to PROMOTE new and creative art. When the act starts stifling art (and Paul's Boutique was one the most creative albums in the last 30 years) there is a serious problem with the way it's being interpreted. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Quote:
Trouble Funk - Drop The Bomb (1982) Trouble Funk - Say what It drives me crazy to know that Yauch found this records in the trash outside a record company and that even spoonie gee is on this label...
Last edited by Space : 05-10-2012 at 11:15 AM. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
Well I'm no lawyer but that makes no fucking sense at all.
How can interpretations of the law go back in time and punish works that were made before said interpretations were even considered? It was my understanding that Paul's Boutique was the impetus for changing the interpretation of the law in the first place, again, after the fact. The copyright suits there Beasties have been involved in all were based off of post-Paul's Boutique material (i.e. Pass the Mic 2003). |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Beastie Boys sued over ‘Licensed to Ill’ and ‘Paul’s Boutique’ samples
http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverhe...copyright-law/
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|